His proposal to free slaves and arm them did not result in major changes in his command. At most it should drop his Seniority rating but not make him a dispirited leader.

Others had proposed the same thing earlier in the war, to include Lee. It just didn’t make it into the news.

His date of rank was 4 March 1862 and the Dec date is when he was promoted to Major General.

He started in Arkansas.

Late September/early October would probably be the best time for Cleburne to appear, though not officially promoted to Major General that corresponds with when he first held a divisional command under Kirby Smith. His only service in Arkansas was as a regimental officer early in the war, all his major commands were with the Army of Tennessee.

A few other suggestions-

AP Stewart should not show up until early 1863 at the earliest, he was just a brigade commander for all of 1862 and a bit into 1863

Thomas Hindman should not appear until mid-1862 (no earlier than April)

Ben Cheatham should probably appear in January 1862 if not earlier, while he was only promoted to Major General in March, I believe his status as a divisional commander well preceded that.

Simon Bolivar Buckner should appear in January 1862 if not earlier, I assume his later entry is intended to correspond with either his Donelson parole or his official promotion to Major General but he should definitely be available in February to be at Donelson

It seems to me, we should be able to get a list that has when someone was promoted to brigadier general (1 star), and that is when they should appear. I always though Major General was 2 stars.

I also think that the CSA might be missing an admiral or two.

Charles

wsatterwhite wrote:Late September/early October would probably be the best time for Cleburne to appear, though not officially promoted to Major General that corresponds with when he first held a divisional command under Kirby Smith. His only service in Arkansas was as a regimental officer early in the war, all his major commands were with the Army of Tennessee.

A few other suggestions-

AP Stewart should not show up until early 1863 at the earliest, he was just a brigade commander for all of 1862 and a bit into 1863

Thomas Hindman should not appear until mid-1862 (no earlier than April)

Ben Cheatham should probably appear in January 1862 if not earlier, while he was only promoted to Major General in March, I believe his status as a divisional commander well preceded that.

Simon Bolivar Buckner should appear in January 1862 if not earlier, I assume his later entry is intended to correspond with either his Donelson parole or his official promotion to Major General but he should definitely be available in February to be at Donelson

Yes Cleburne was a regimental commander in Arkansas. He was promoted from his regiment to the star.

Arkansas troops mostly served in the Army of Tennessee. Only one regiment went to VA that I know of.

Brigade Commanders are Brigadier Generals and the war starts off with no Divisions. Some were not even Generals when they show up, and I know that is for a reason. But I see no reason to delay his arrival. He comes in as a one star on the date he made his second. He was leading troops at Shiloh.

I've always understood 1-star generals within the game to not actually represent brigadier rank but simply the lowest command level (divisional and independent brigade) represented with 2-star simply representing the second command level (corps) and 3-star representing the third level (army). To that end, I've always thought it best generals not appear until they historically reached either a divisional or independent command since there is no mechanism in place to restrict players to only using brigade-level commanders as just that.

Regarding Cleburne, yes he led troops (very capably, of course) at Shiloh but in a strategic level game where leadership via generals plays a key role, he simply doesn't belong in the game at that stage. Look at the oob, by my count there were at least 12 Confederate generals present at that battle who are represented within the game- army commander A. Johnston, corps commanders Bragg, Polk, Hardee and Breckinridge, division commanders Cheatham, Withers and Ruggles and brigade commanders Hindman, Stewart, B. Johnson and Cleburne. The army that these generals were attached to only contained 16 brigades and still is supposed to suffer a great deal of command issues (this being the first major battle in the West) but using the game's command rules and allowing all of these generals to be available at this early point creates the exact opposite situation- the Confederate player actually can have an army with a strong command. In a strategic level game like ACW where leadership is vital, I think it's wise to keep generals out of the game until their presence is more fitting to the scale (only divisional commands and up).

Yep, quite important that we look at who commanded what, not just at their actual rank (with a few exceptions). That is we look for division command, corps command and army command (obviously some historic armies don't qualify as AACW armies, in a few cases not even as corps). Then we try and add leaders to the game shortly before they first held an applicable command...

That's also one of the reasons we have to dig through the current list of generals, quite a few are in the Force Pool that have no business bheing in the game at all, others appear to early or too late, yet others are excluded even though they played a significant role...

A limited number of leaders who never held division or higher level command could be included, that is if they played an important role and are somewhat unique (one example comes to mind indian fighters and/or indian leaders)...

I just don't understand what all the fuss is all about with improperly including generals that shouldn't be in command. If you don't like General so-and-so and think it wouldn't be historical or whatever to use them, don't. There's nothing stopping a player from NOT using a General once he's activated. Just ship the unwanted generals off to some remote region that will never see action and let them enjoy their new vacation spot.

In the end I'd rather have a lush and full resource pool to grab generals from than have good or desirable generals excluded simply because of a design decision or some other reason.

Good to see some thinking about AACW2, i've been away from the original for some time but i was playing around with it for a while.
One of the things I did was try to identify divisional commanders through the war (* in game) using references in David J. Eicher's "The Longest Night" i've attached the Union list I made which includes where and when they took Divisional command, when they were commisioned etc.

Hope the list is of some interest and use.

I'm not sure I finished the CSA list will need to have a look.

I had hoped to fix a way where you recieved generals up to a maximum which then got topped up as generals were removed by casualties, events etc, I never fully cracked that though.

S!

Attachments

[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

Boomer wrote:I just don't understand what all the fuss is all about with improperly including generals that shouldn't be in command. If you don't like General so-and-so and think it wouldn't be historical or whatever to use them, don't. There's nothing stopping a player from NOT using a General once he's activated. Just ship the unwanted generals off to some remote region that will never see action and let them enjoy their new vacation spot.

In the end I'd rather have a lush and full resource pool to grab generals from than have good or desirable generals excluded simply because of a design decision or some other reason.

That would mean that anyone who wishes to play a historic game would have to research in detail which leader to leave out of his game or not. No, I think the inverse is much easier, do some thorough research in advance only including those justified and leave it up to individual players to mod the game if they wish to add unhistoric choices. One should also consider that adding good generals who were not actually in divisional command (and did not perform any actions worthwhile enough to make an exception) would unbalance the game to a certain degree (61 average of CS general excellent while US is unremarkable, 65 average CS much declined and average US quite good)...

Very much so, I hope it plays a role in fine tuning the leader pool in game but if not I greatly appreciate having it for my own use, I'm a huge geek when it comes to stuff like this. If you ever manage to finish the Confederate list I hope you share that as well.

Captain_Orso wrote: At it's inception the KKK was supposed to protect the South from the North trying to impose the "norther way of life" on them and to protect their "southern way of life". When it started turning into an "I hate Yankees, jews, n*ggers an' revenuers" club, he quit.

Not accurate here - that is more the D.W. Griffith "Birth of a Nation" version. The KKK was indeed founded to protect the south, but the rest of the sentence should be filled in "...protect the south from the consequences of the ending of slavery." The KKK immediately launched terror campaigns to overturn the first set of Reconstruction elections which had put a number of black office holders in place (in many of these states there would be no black Congressmen again for another century). They used intimidation and violence to dissuade blacks from registering to vote. The aim was to convince blacks to maintain (or return, as it were) to their status of subjection to white authority. By 1877, Reconstruction had failed, Jim Crow laws were in place by 1890, and it wouldn't be until the 1950's and 1960's before the federal courts moved against de jure segregation (de facto segregation remains to a great extent, but that is another story). Bedford Forrest was part of all this. By 1875, when he made his alleged peace with blacks and supposedly left the KKK, the work of the night riders was substantially complete. Folks interested in more detail should read the original Prescript of the KKK - it was clearly a white supremacist document.

To be clear, Bedford Forrest was a great military leader and deserves his place in American history as such. But his actions as a KKK member also are part of the record. There are any number of leaders, both north and south, whose racial views of the time would not be acceptable today. But we need to acknowledge them.

The natural inclination of all of us is to want to extend the praise a military leader receives to the rest of their activities. But quite a few of the great generals of the past have skeletons in their closet. Henry V is a great example. He is celebrated in Shakespeare. Yet he presided over the horrendous siege of Rouen where he kept thousands of French non-combatants in a ditch between the armies where they starved and froze. He ordered his prisoners killed at Agincourt. He dealt roughly quite often. He was a man of his times - the aspirations of knighthood generally fell pretty short of reality.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:Noone uses randomize generals, at least in PBEM. What about replacing it with a version where you don't see generals stats? Maybe make the stats slowly materialize over multiple battles?

This is because it is much harder to do this feature. It is very difficult to hide the stats or abilities because the game leave you hints everywhere (for example for abilities, your command points derive often from some abilities). A simpler way would be to only hide stats though.

Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

I don't know if anyone is still considering adding leaders, but Emory Upton, as previously suggested, would be a great addition.

... Upton was as good an artillery officer as could be found in any country, the equal of any cavalry commander of his day, and, all things considered, was the best commander of a division of infantry in either the Union or the rebel army. ... He was incontestably the best tactician of either army, and this is true whether tested by battle or by the evolutions of the drill field and parade. In view of his success of all arms of the service, it is not too much to add that he could scarcely have failed as a corps or army commander had it been his good fortune to be called to such rank. ... No one can read the story of his brilliant career without concluding that he had a real genius for war, together with all the theoretical and practical knowledge which any one could acquire in regard to it. Up to the time when he was disabled by the disease which caused his death he was, all things considered, the most accomplished soldier in our service. His life was pure and upright, his bearing chivalric and commanding, his conduct modest and unassuming, and his character absolutely without blemish. History cannot furnish a brighter example of unselfish patriotism, or ambition unsullied by an ignoble thought or an unworthy deed. He was a credit to the State and family which gave him birth, to the military academy which educated him, and to the army in which he served. So long as the Union has such soldiers as he to defend it, it will be perpetual.

— Maj. Gen. James H. Wilson, The Life and Letters of Emory Upton

How about something along the lines of 4-4-1, Cavalryman, Charismatic? Artilleryman? A northern S. D. Lee? Not really sure how to best show off the tactical small unit innovations of this brilliant, young commander.